Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
April 18, 2014, 03:18:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Yeah! I thought so.  (Read 6647 times)
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« on: September 18, 2007, 02:52:48 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070918/cm_usatoday/godandtheconstitution

 On Sept. 17, 1787, after a long summer of argument and compromise, the Founders completed and signed what would become the U.S. Constitution. And despite popular misconception, it didn't include a word about the USA being a "Christian nation."

In fact, the Constitution doesn't mention Christianity, or God, at all. It is a secular document outlining the structure of what would become the new government of this nation.

Likewise, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects every individual's right to practice his or her own religion — bans government "establishment" or direct support of religion — makes no mention of Christianity.

Yet, 220 years later, an astonishing 55% of respondents to a poll released last week said they believe the Constitution "establishes a Christian nation."

More disturbing than the mistaken assumption of special status for one religion is a broader pattern evident in this poll, taken by a respected survey research firm for the First Amendment Center. The poll shows widespread ignorance of basic freedoms and a belief that many of the Constitution's rights apply only to some Americans, not to all:



* 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.



* 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.



* 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

Just as the Founding Fathers didn't apply freedom of religion just to Christians, neither did they limit freedom of speech, freedom of the press or freedom of assembly just to those who behave politely or avoid offense. How could it be otherwise? If freedom of religion means anything, it must apply equally to minority religions. And if freedoms of speech, press and assembly mean anything, they must apply to all — most particularly those whose views might not be in the current mainstream.

In a democracy, if freedom is not available to all, then no one is truly free.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2007, 03:36:11 PM »

yes, it's always good to read the darn thing.

unfortunately, they don't teach that stuff in school anymore, and parents don't seem to think it's very important.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
qa33010
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 910


Location: Arkansas, White County


« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2007, 11:02:22 PM »

    Problem is every public (read state run) school has become so dependent on federal and state money they are forced to teach what ever comes down from on high, and who ever controls on high (usually those who scream the loudest).  I remember learning about the constitution in fourth grade and very much more depth in junior and senior high.  My kids are learning it at home as well as strting them on the Federalist Papers.  I don't sugar coat anything, but I do teach them that we are a constantly growing country and that change for the sake of change is not a good thing. 

I better stop before I get going.
Logged

Everyone said it couldn't be done. But he with a chuckle replied, "I won't be one to say it is so, until I give it a try."  So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin.  If he had a worry he hid it and he started to sing as he tackled that thing that couldn't be done, and he did it.  (unknown)
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2007, 11:09:39 PM »

The point I was commenting on.....  "Yeah! I thought so." ........ is how many people do not believe freedom is for everyone, just a chosen few. That is why we deprive people of their freedoms.... Just because someone didn't like what they said or did.

Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2007, 11:06:42 AM »

the constitution does 3 things.  1. lists the duties of the federal government  2.  lists the freedoms of the people   3. lists the LIMITATIONS of the federal government.  everything not listed in the constitution is left to the states. according to the constitution, Georgia could decided it wanted to become the baptist state of Georgia.  NY could become the muslim state of NY.  they could base their state constitutions on those beliefs as long as they did not force people to worship in a certain way, or did not keep people from worshiping as they saw fit.  Utah could reinstate polygamy if it wanted to.

as qa33010 points out, states have become so dependent on federal money, that they have abdicated their power in favor of the federal dollar.  this gives federal idiots like the department of education, power over them to dictate what they can and can't teach.  they also have become so fearful of organizations like the NEA and the ACLU that they will not do anything to upset them.  they do not teach the constitution.  they certainly do not teach the federalist papers!  how can people know what is in the constitution unless they have the desire to study for themselves? 

the constitution does not mention Christianity.  however, there can be no doubt that the founders wrote it based on Christian principles.  they intentionally did not include a state church because they wanted a government run apart from the church, or any large central power.  there can be no doubt, when you read the papers of the founders, that they intended a Christian nation.  why?  because they believed that the principles of Christianity gave the best and most enduring personal freedom....the freedom of choice.

if TJ's letter to the Danbury baptists had been taken in context, it is hard to see how the supremes could have come to the ruling about separation of church and state.  their ruling is a defacto change in the Constitution and i would like to see it revisited.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2007, 01:37:58 PM »

Jerrymac:

I think you find this a bit amusing.

http://www.linkinn.com/userfiles/Image/dear-articles-2.jpg


Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2007, 04:52:33 PM »

Yep. That's the way it is  rolleyes
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2007, 06:04:28 PM »

Quote
Yep. That's the way it is


actually....no it's not.  i have not seen any atheists deported.  this person has a right to her opinion, uninformed as it is.  she should be angry at those who pander to atheists and change things legislatively that the general population would not otherwise support.  a minority is entitled to their opinion.  they are not entitled to force their belief (or lack of belief) system off on others. 

they could create their own state!!   Wink
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007, 06:27:18 PM »

By "That's the way it is" I mean how a lot of people, just like that lady, don't believe others have rights. Some how they mess it all up in their head, just as she did, and there fore eliminates others rights.

Good example is the 2nd Amendment. Is it the people of the whole country, or just the ones in the militia, that get to keep and bear arms? Some say only the militia.... and then they eliminate those folks because we now have the national guard  rolleyes
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
qa33010
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 910


Location: Arkansas, White County


« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2007, 12:03:39 AM »

    If I remember right militia is a citizen that is called up or volunteers to fight an enemy of "the state" with minimal or almost nonexistent training.  They are not nor have they been professional service men or women.  Our armed forces active, guard and reserve are the best trained and chose to be professional military.  This thought is only half there and incomplete but I lost my train of thought.

Understudy...  That's just plain scary and hilarious.  I'm passing that one on.
Logged

Everyone said it couldn't be done. But he with a chuckle replied, "I won't be one to say it is so, until I give it a try."  So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin.  If he had a worry he hid it and he started to sing as he tackled that thing that couldn't be done, and he did it.  (unknown)
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2007, 07:30:29 AM »

Oh, please, let's not go over the Second Amendment again.  The People means the same thing in the Second as it means in all of the other amendments.  It's you and me and anyone else.  Any other way of reading it is nothing but revisionist thinking the loony left is trying desperately to use to take away our right to defend ourselves.  From GOA Fact Sheet:

Quote
    F. Myth #6: The Second Amendment militia is the National Guard.

        The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia.

        1. Founding Fathers

            * George Mason: "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."184

            * Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . ."

            * Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."185


GunCite site

This whole map should be blue.
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2007, 10:19:05 AM »

instead of teaching our children how to defend their country, we now teach them that our country is not worth defending.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Mici
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1502


Location: Zagradec, Grosuple, Lower Carniola, Slovenia

tougher than rock


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2007, 11:42:24 AM »

instead of teaching our children how to defend their country, we now teach them that our country is not worth defending.
sad but true, however. the country is worth it, most of it's inhabitants and all of "leaders" aren't
Logged
KONASDAD
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2011


Location: Cherry Hill, N.J.


« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2007, 12:06:43 PM »

The federalist papers were drafted as Hamiltons personal viewpoints that he was advocating to NY so they would ratify the constitition. There other numerous viewpoints from our founders, but the federalist are perhaps the best known. Nontheless, they are lettrs of advocacy. They are what Hamilton though the consitition should be. The constitution was and is a compromise. Some of Hamiltons ideas were included, others not. The founders included many ideals, but ultimatley, they needed to get it passed. The articles of conferdaration preceded the constition and contained only the powers of declaring/waging war and setting peace conditioons if I recall correctly. They were a catastrophe as the gov't was incapable of acomplishing anything. The constitition wasn't a foundation for christian principles but generally recognized principles contained within the magna carta. Are they an outgrowth of judeo/christian ideals, yes. To suggest our founders wanted a country founded principally on christian ideals would be innacccurate.
Logged

"The more complex the Mind, the Greater the need for the simplicity of Play".
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2007, 11:56:02 PM »

the federalist papers were written by others also.  these writings, along with the writings of other founders are important to understand intent.

the founders not only intend to have a nation based on christian principles, but they intended a christian nation.  why?  because the basics of freedom, equality, and accountability, are biblical teachings.  one big reason the catholic church didn't want people to actually read the thing.  when they did, they found that their salvation was not in the church.  bummer for the catholic church.

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
 “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

Samuel Adams: “ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams:• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."


 i have heard ben franklin called an atheist.  doesn't sound like one.  i have lots more of these, but you get the idea.  we don't teach this because of the mistaken rulings of the supremes and the advocacy by the ACLU on the part of those who want knowledge withheld.




Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2007, 12:22:03 PM »

E pluribus unum is the motto for the United States. It was on coins until 1956 and was replaced with In God we Trust as a response to the godless communist threat of the day.


From The Christian Nation Myth

by Farrell Till

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

.....Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371).

In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).

After Jefferson became president, he did not compromise his beliefs. As president, he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1014.ZC2.html

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html

Realizing that whatever legislation an elected assembly passed can be later repealed, Jefferson ended the statute with a statement of contempt for any legislative body that would be so presumptuous "And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right" (emphasis added).

Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.
- Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793


Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2007, 01:38:06 PM »

brendhan.....farrell till?  really?  that might not be as good a source as the actual beliefs of the founder.  would you take his advice on diet and animal care??  smiley

I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]


TJ was not a fan of organized religion.  he did not want to see power in the hands of a church.  in fact, he didn't want to see power in much of anyones hands.  his writings on judicial power and the constitution are another good example of his attitude. TJ did consider himself a christian in the biblical sense, rather than the church going sense.  he also was a regular in church.

anyone can take certain writings and strip out bits to make a point.  it is the whole of the writings that are important, as well as the known actions of the founders.  the Danbury Letter is a good example of what happens when you take a bit out of context and use it to support judicial activism.

christianity is not a church.  it is a set of principles for life and faith.  the founders wanted to preserve and promote in this nation the principles of christianity, as the basis for freedom.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2007, 02:41:21 PM »

brendhan.....farrell till?  really?  that might not be as good a source as the actual beliefs of the founder.  would you take his advice on diet and animal care??  smiley

No I wouldn't that doesn't make him wrong on this.

Quote
I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
He is comparing the bible to philosophy not the making of a christian nation.

Quote
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

Nothing I see there says this is a christian nation. He uses the word religion, not christianity.

Quote
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781][/i]


TJ was not a fan of organized religion.  he did not want to see power in the hands of a church.  in fact, he didn't want to see power in much of anyones hands.  his writings on judicial power and the constitution are another good example of his attitude. TJ did consider himself a christian in the biblical sense, rather than the church going sense.  he also was a regular in church.

That doesn't mean he wanted a christian nation. Again read the Treaty of Tripoli.  Christian, Buddist, and Jewish philosophies are all basically the same. TJ wrote his own versions of the New Testament removing most of the miracles in them. Attending church does not mean he wanted a christian nation. Jefferson attended a Unitarian church. A radical fringe at the least.

Quote
anyone can take certain writings and strip out bits to make a point.  it is the whole of the writings that are important, as well as the known actions of the founders.  the Danbury Letter is a good example of what happens when you take a bit out of context and use it to support judicial activism.


christianity is not a church.  it is a set of principles for life and faith.  the founders wanted to preserve and promote in this nation the principles of christianity, as the basis for freedom.

Yeah the wall of seperation is just so out of context. (sarcasm)
The danbury letter clearly makes sure that church and state are seperate.
Don't forget it wasn't just Thomas Jefferson, But many of the founding fathers that did not want a christian nation. They did believe in God but not all of them believed in a Christian God. Diests made very sure they were seperate from orthodox Christians. Saying one believes in God does not automatically make them christian. Nor did it with the founding fathers.

This country is founded on religous freedoms not Christian freedoms. Including a freedom to not believe in god. And to not have Christian beliefs forced down your throat.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2007, 04:44:02 PM »

Quote
Yeah the wall of separation is just so out of context.


the interpretation by the supremes is not supported by the words of the constitution, intent of the founders, OR the danbury letter.

most of the rest of what you wrote if correct, but your conclusions are incorrect.  the founding fathers clearly identified themselves as christians.  they did not necessarily identify themselves with a particular church.  in their own words they stated their intentions.  if they did not all state the intent to form a christian nation, they did state the intent to create a nation based on judaeo-christian principles.

they also recognized the potential power of A church gaining to much influence in government and daily life.  thus the "free exercise there of" part of the clause.  yes, you can make the choice to worship as you see fit, or to not worship at all.  both old and new testament teachings are about choice.  your right to be an atheist is a christian principle  smiley.

if you read the letter from the danbury baptists you will find that they were concerned about a particular group legislating religious matters.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm

 TJ reaffirmed the 1st which has only to do with the legislature and making laws about religion.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/danbury.htm

when read in total and in context, no other conclusion can be drawn.

you rightly point out that there are several religions that support the same freedoms.  that is precisely why totalitarian regimes make it one of their first orders of business to destroy religion when they come into power.  you can not serve god and a repressive regime.  their goals are at odds.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2007, 06:02:33 PM »


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

Again there is nothing in that statement about a Christian nation.

The founding fathers may have ideals that seem christian but they did not want a Christian nation. I have shown that several times already.

The United States is not a christian nation.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2007, 07:37:22 PM »


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

Again there is nothing in that statement about a Christian nation.

The founding fathers may have ideals that seem christian but they did not want a Christian nation. I have shown that several times already.

The United States is not a christian nation.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Yea, just like it isn't English-speaking  rolleyes
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2007, 07:47:17 PM »

Quote
Again there is nothing in that statement about a Christian nation

more to the point; there is nothing in there about seperation of church and state.

Quote
The United States is not a christian nation.


that is a true statemenet....although, the majority of it's inhabitants identify themselves as christians.

Quote
The founding fathers may have ideals that seem christian but they did not want a Christian nation. I have shown that several times already.


you have not and you can not.   their own words and actions betray that argument.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2007, 07:51:31 PM »


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  


Again there is nothing in that statement about a Christian nation.

The founding fathers may have ideals that seem christian but they did not want a Christian nation. I have shown that several times already.

The United States is not a christian nation.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Yea, just like it isn't English-speaking  rolleyes


That is a different topic. And yes it is not a English speaking nation.
http://www.brendhanhorne.com/coppermine_dir/displayimage.php?album=97&pos=66
That is a historic marker in dutch. In New York.
When you go and look at the old cemetaries in New Orleans they are in French.
Florida was settled by the Spanish. We still have our chinatowns, and other ethnic pockets through out this country where the signs are not in english the employees may not speak it.

There is a wonderful cartoon I like, it explains things well.
http://xkcd.com/84/

This nation is a melting pot. Insisting that everyone who comes here speak english is bigoted and shortsighted.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2007, 10:09:31 PM »

Quote
This nation is a melting pot. Insisting that everyone who comes here speak english is bigoted and shortsighted.

insisting that everyone who come here learns engish well enough to function in an english speaking country, is just common sense.  the south does not belong to the french or the spanish anymore.  california does not belong to mexico.  there are a number of things that can unite a people.  we have chosen to forgo many of those things.  the one important common denominator that we need, to function well, is a common language.  there is nothing wrong with having a country where many languages are spoken.  there is something very wrong with catering to those who wish to stay separate.  if they wish to maintain purity of language and culture, they should go back to their place or origin.

many of the founders were not big fans of immigration.  they thought it would be better to have slow growth from within, than a flood of different cultures.  one reason we were able to have a large influx of immigrants and and make it work, is that people came here because they wanted to be americans.  that included learning english.  in the later 20th century, that changed.  we became PC and tried to have mini-countries within the US.  separate holidays, language, culture, etc.  it does not work.  if you want to see how well it doesn't work, look at france and england.  their sub-cultures live in poverty, they do not get the education, they do not get the jobs, they cause endless problems for law enforcement.  they do not identify with their adopted country, so they become easy recruits into subversive and terrorist organizations. 

one need not become part of the borg collective to become american.  one must develop a sense of national identity, else what is the point of being here?  to collect welfare?  to provide safe houses to terrorist cells?  if you do not want to be american but only want the benefit of the country, you are part of the eventual destruction of the country.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2007, 10:21:20 PM »


This nation is a melting pot. Insisting that everyone who comes here speak english is bigoted and shortsighted.

Sincerely,
Brendhan


Brendhan, I am neither a bigot or shortsighted and don't appreciate being called such.

I would fully support any legislation that declared the USA and English speaking nation, since it already is.  A melting pot means exactly what it says, newcomers should melt into American life, not try to make it another version of their home country. 
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2007, 11:07:27 PM »

OK now it is about to get to the point I started with. We must deny others their freedom because we want it a certain way.

Telling someone they must learn English when they may not want to is forcing them to live your way. If we want to truly call this country free then we must accept somethings we find inconvenient. 
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2007, 07:06:43 AM »

It's not inconvenient, Jerry, it costs me money.  The taxpayers and ratepayers in this country shouldn't have to pay to have translators everywhere (courts, hospitals, etc), nor should they have to pay for second-language education - only to learn English.  It's not racist, it's purely financial.
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2007, 07:23:12 AM »

It's not inconvenient, Jerry, it costs me money.

As I said inconvenient

The taxpayers and ratepayers in this country shouldn't have to pay to have translators everywhere (courts, hospitals, etc), nor should they have to pay for second-language education - only to learn English.  It's not racist, it's purely financial.

Since it is so inconvenient, you demand some one.... probably poor..... to spend their money on learning another language. No one said anything about race.

Here in America we strut around with our noses in the air telling everyone "Hey, Look at us. We're the greatest nation on earth. Here every one is free." then in the next breath we want some one to bow down and do things "our" way.

What are all the reasons why you don't learn another language or two?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2007, 08:33:24 AM »

Because I don't live in another country and have no need to learn another language (although I have, I took high school french as that is my heritage).  What languages do you speak?

There is nothing wrong with teaching English to students, all students - what is wrong is teaching in their language - immersion is the best way to learn, and children pick up languages quite quickly.  The twisted way they get around to ESL programs, at least up around here, costs everyone far too much money, time and resources.  Nevermind having to print everything up in 14 (fourteen!!) different languages.

If you're going to make money part of the issue, it would be better for them to learn English, that way they have a chance at a better job - but I suppose it is better that they live in their own areas, speak their own language, work in service jobs and get sour and bitter about not being able to better themselves. 
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2007, 08:55:11 AM »

Because I don't live in another country and have no need to learn another language (although I have, I took high school french as that is my heritage).  What languages do you speak?
Spanish not fluently, Sign Language, 2 years of latin. My wife speaks spanish and some Italian.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with teaching English to students, all students - what is wrong is teaching in their language - immersion is the best way to learn, and children pick up languages quite quickly.  The twisted way they get around to ESL programs, at least up around here, costs everyone far too much money, time and resources.  Nevermind having to print everything up in 14 (fourteen!!) different languages.
What about the adults. If you just moved to Finland, do you think you would know the language right away?

Quote
If you're going to make money part of the issue, it would be better for them to learn English, that way they have a chance at a better job - but I suppose it is better that they live in their own areas, speak their own language, work in service jobs and get sour and bitter about not being able to better themselves. 

This has been proven to be untrue time and time again. Here is why. The people who don't speak english very well do work. They do earn money. And they do need to spend it. They spend it in areas where they encounter least resistance. That is why Miami is so bi lingual. The buisnesses want the money. They would sell with advertisiments in Swahili if there was enough money in it.

The ports bring in products from all over the world. Buisness speaks one language and it isn't english.

It's sad that most people in other countries speak at least two languages, yet the attitude in the country by so many is that everyone should cater to us. That is a pretty sad statement in my book.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2007, 10:07:16 AM »

I only speak English. I drove trucks all over the country and have dealt with people that spoke some other language. Spanish. French. Some oriental language not sure which. German. Cajun. And we some how managed to get the job done.

What has "not living in another country" got to do with anything? I named six languages that are spoken in this country. Want to take a guess at how many more there are? And yes, right now, English is the dominant language, and there are those that will fight and fuss and try to keep it so, because it is the way they want their little world, but I'm willing to bet that sometime in the future there will be more people speaking another language here. Then they will demand everyone learn it.

Oh, and you were making it about money

It's not inconvenient, Jerry, it costs me money. 
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2007, 12:31:27 PM »

Yes, I am making it about money, which isn't 'convenient' or 'inconvenient', especially for those of us who are just making it ourselves.  And it's not just my money I'm worried about, I'm also worried about the non-English speakers not being able to reach their full potential in an English speaking country where they can't communicate well enough to get out of their neighborhoods.  I've read of people here in MA who are immigrants and very unhappy with how their children are being taught in their 'own' language.  The parents want them to learn English, because they know it will hold them back in the long run.  But feel-good liberals can't and won't listen to that, they think they know better.  Instead of helping, they're keeping the underclass right where they want them, dependent on them, not getting anywhere - and I guess in your mind that's a good thing.

If I were to move to France, I'd learn French.  Germany, German.  I wouldn't expect them to turn themselves inside out to learn English, and yes, I know, many of them do speak it.  That isn't something I should expect, though.  But I see you think I want it because that's how it is in my little world, which means you've cast me as a small-minded bigot, so again, I get called names and you celebrate diversity.  This conversation is so over....
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2007, 01:09:14 PM »

Quote
If we want to truly call this country free then we must accept somethings we find inconvenient. 


it is not a free country.  it is a nation of laws and traditions.

understudy, the second language that most learn fluently in other countries is ENGLISH.  i understand that people just coming here do not know the language.  i have worked with a number of immigrant groups and it is hard for older people to learn.  not a problem.  however, when you have children in school, and second generations that do not speak engish...do not even care to learn, you have a problem.  when they demand that they have translators available, and things printed in multiple languages, it's a problem.  if they are voting and can't read english, that's a problem.  if they are getting a drivers license and need the instructions and test in some other language, that's a big problem.

jerrymac, it's not a matter of arrogance.  when i travel to another country, i do not expect them to be able to communicate with me in english.  in a tourist spot they usually can.  outside of that, they can't .  if i moved to a village in france or spain, i'd have to learn the language in order to function.  the language of this country is english.  it makes sense to have bilingual people in airports and at tourist spots.  it makes no sense to have every document translated into 50 languages and every person from every country demanding interpretors at tax payer or member expense for court hearings, hospital visits, etc. 

you want your melting pot.  you can't have it with the tower of babel.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2007, 02:30:04 PM »

There you go again talking about other countries.  rolleyes

If it isn't a free country then by god we should pass legislation to stop calling it a free country. How dare we lure people here under false pretenses.

If people feel they are held back because they can't talk English and they feel they could get further in life by knowing English then for sure I am not going to stop them from learning. We don't need a law for them to do that, just go and do it. I know a few that have come over the border and have learned all on their own to speak English. If I thought I needed to speak Spanish to get further in life I would certainly learn how to do that.

We are only a country of laws because so many people want everything their way. They think they need to help everybody out. They feel they need to protect everybody from everything, even themselves. If people think it is so darned important to teach English to every body, then why don't they go out and do it? Why do we need laws to not only force someone to learn the language, but to force someone to teach it.

I guess I have to go back and read the constitution because I don't remember reading where English was the legal language in this country.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2007, 04:05:59 PM »

The fact that I knew sign language was skipped over. I am not surprised.
It is not english. Maybe we shouldn't cater to their needs.

Jerrymac mentioned driving his truck and encountering six different languages in his travels. I am sure that number could be even higher.

If you traveled to another country you would probably need at least a year in some cases more to become familar with another language. Translators and documents in other languages make things more convienent not less convienent. Why would someone want to adapt to a new place if nothing is done to help them adapt. I am sure Miami would rather have the tax money from the local businesses. Buisnesses run by people whose English may be non existant. People who have families and contribute well to society except for the fact they may not speak english. These people have reach and achieved the american dream, that seems to me like they have reached their potential.  There are plenty of english speaking native born americans who don't make any effort to reach their potential.

People who have become citzens and vote that is about as American as it gets. So what if they want a non english ballot. At least they vote. I will take that over an native born english speaking person who doesn't bother.

I have a person I worked with who had been in this country for twenty years. He was born in S. Africa. Ten years ago he got his american citizenship. His wife got hers also at the same time. I remember a bunch of people mocking him for his accent telling him he should go home. He explained he was home he was American. The people saying no he wasn't because he wasn't born here. His getting his citizenship didn't matter. This is the kind of crap that ignorant Americans say. It is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Forcing someone to learn english is wrong and should not be tolerated.
Forcing someone to accept God is the same thing. Abhorant.


Sincerely,
Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
randydrivesabus
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1072

Location: Indian Valley, VA


« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2007, 04:15:09 PM »

so maybe the supreme court should stop using latin phrases in describing the law? or scientists for that matter?
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2007, 04:28:52 PM »

The fact that I knew sign language was skipped over. I am not surprised.
It is not english. Maybe we shouldn't cater to their needs.

Is sign language universal? Not an English version or a Spanish version ect ect
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2007, 05:21:25 PM »

It has regional dialects even in this country. There is also ASL (American Sign Language) which is an effort to make sign language seem more gramatical. But no sign language is not universal.

Here is a list from Gallaudet.
http://edf3.gallaudet.edu/diversity/BGG/Sign%20Language%20Around%20the%20World/Index.html


Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2007, 05:29:04 PM »

god and english equated.  that's kind of screwed up thinking.

you can not learn to hear any more than you can learn to see if you are blind.  you can learn english.

understudy, i am guessing that i am old enough to be your....mother  smiley.  when i grew up in s ca, we did not have ESL, or multiple language drivers tests, or multiple language ballots.  guess what?  people learned to speak english.  california has found the hard way that teaching in spanish actually slows down the learning of english.  who'd a thunk it?  

having an accent when speaking english is not the same as not learning the language.  you in the south have an awful accent.  i can hardly understand it sometimes.  even so, i recognize it as english (most of the time).  

in order to become a citizen, you are supposed to demonstrate a working knowledge of the english language.  if you are voting, you are supposed to be a citizen.  you also have been in this country for a bit if you have become a citizen.  if you need a translated ballot, it might bring up the question of valid citizenship.  one of the reasons some areas of the country do not want id for voting is that they know that a lot of illegals vote.  agenda anyone?

jerrymac has it right.  we do not need a law declaring english the official language.  we need to do away with all of the services that make it convenient for people not to learn.  my family learned.  it's not always perfect.  sometimes it's quite hilarious.  by my generation we had mastered it....for the most part  smiley  why should my taxes be used to enable laziness?

who ever tried to shove god down your throat.  have you been forced to worship?  have you been forced to declare a belief?  have you been shunned because you do not believe?  define "forced".
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5219


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2007, 05:38:32 PM »

Just imagine how wonderful a world it would be if everyone showed up at a gathering everyone spoke a different language and no one knew what the other was talking about.
  And to the original point,government should not regulate religion which they are trying to do.
The elite would rather you turn to them for help instead of having faith in your God and family.
I really beleive many in Washington would like to legislate religion out of your life!
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2007, 06:05:27 PM »

Just imagine how wonderful a world it would be if everyone showed up at a gathering everyone spoke a different language and no one knew what the other was talking about.

We are not discussing the UN here grin
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 08:33:39 PM by buzzbee » Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5219


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2007, 08:31:50 PM »

Perfect example Jerry cheesy
God loveya Jerry!   It is okay to say that here isn't it? Wink


Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2007, 09:42:47 PM »

OK what did I miss?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2007, 10:32:03 PM »

Se Espanol? 
Anamok Turke?
Wawa Chinook?
Nippongo deska? (Nippongo is the langugage, Nipponging is the people)
Sprekenze Duetche?
Parlevous France?

Knowing more than 1 language is important and a courtesy.  Americans are the only people in the world who demand that anyone coming to their country learn English, they also demand that when they go to other countries the natives speak English as well.  It's called the Ugly American Syndrome. 

Everyone I've ever talked to throughout the world would like to be an American because of the freedoms.  That said, they think Americans are egotistical bigots.  If you want to be treated like royalty in a foriegn country speak a little of their language, it doesn't have to be perfect--just the fact that you try marks you as a very uncommon American.

When I was managing a restuarant I had a couple from Burnaby, BC, Canada come in with 2 exchange students.  1 was obviously oriental, the other middle eastern.  While The BC couple were explaining to me that the girls were exchange students and had trouble speaking English, I asked the 1 "Anata Niipponging?"  She answered, "Hai, Doitasimatsu."  I then asked the other "San Turke?" when she said yes in English I then greeted her with "Marahuba."
The 2 girls insisted on having there picture taken with me as I was the only person they had meant in either Canada or the USA that could talk to them in their native languages.  I spent the next hour giving them a lesson in how to say certain things in each others language.

If a person who can speak several languages is multi-lingual, a person who speacks 3 languages is called tri-lingual, and a person who can speak 2 languages is called bi-lingual, what is a person called who can only speak 1 language?

An American!

The mixture and diversity of ethnicity and languages is what has made America great.  I do resent people insisting on retaining their native Soverignty once they set about becoming an American but I have no problem with them retaining an ethic heritage or language. 

What I get out of this discussion so far is that most contributors seem to thing soverignty and heritage are the same thing.
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14809


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2007, 11:33:49 PM »

speaking more than one language is a great thing.  when i travel, i try to learn at least enough of the language of the country to get by.  directions, food, bathrooms, please and thank you....and enough of the customs to not be thought of as "the ugly american". 

that said, i don't think i should have to learn another language to communicate in my own country.  i do not think that someone who comes here to live should expect my tax dollars to pay for them not taking the time to learn english.  retain your language and customs.  learn english and american.  you can do both.

i have to disagree with the egotistical bigot part.  the french have to corner on that market.  there are plenty of people who have a negative view of americans, but if you ask them where they get their opinions, it is not from the americans they meet.  it is from the press.  both ours and theirs.  this is especially true in parts of europe.  i read quite a bit of foreign press and the stories they tell about us would be funny if they were not so appallingly wrong most of the time.

they are also upset that we have things like the death penalty and that we do not have universal health  care..  some are upset that we don't provide free housing and college education.   they consider us to be a bit barbaric and it disturbs them that we do not conform to what they consider to be international norms.  it upsets them that we do not pay more in taxes so that our government can do more for us. 

most of the world countries have become socialist nations.  they do not understand the concept of individual responsibility or individual drive for success.  they consider wealth to be a sin.

in europe especially they look at americans as upstarts that have just learned to walk upright.  as my english brother in law said, i really distresses many europeans that such primitive people could be so successful  smiley

i had to come back and amend this because i had forgotten one other thing that really drives the europeans crazy..GUNS.  private gun ownership is another proof of our lack of culture and assimilation into the international collective.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 01:40:24 PM by kathyp » Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
qa33010
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 910


Location: Arkansas, White County


« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2007, 12:16:58 AM »

    Learning a language is not a skill everyone has.  While taking spanish in school I loved it.  But about a fourth of the class, try as they might, couldn't get past Buenos dias, tardes or noches.  They wanted to so bad, they spent extra time during study halls, but couldn't.

    While in the service I tried to learn as much of each country's language as I could.  This included more than ordering a drink, a meal and getting my face slapped (usually me UNINTENTIONALLY saying something wrong, other times not so evil).  I had a roomate in West Germany, on the economy, that couldn't get german down to save his life.  His German girlfriend who later became his wife tried to help him but it was useless.  He tried High German and local dialect.  Granted I have run into the 'ugly american' while overseas and have had a few words with them but it was a brick wall.  One example was Oktoberfest in Munich.  There was a bunch of us from different countries having a great time and most of us couldn't understand each other, and didn't care.  An american couple was sitting behind us and a buddy of mine asked the man for a light.  The guy said sure and lit his cigarette.  My buddy thanked him and then asked were in the states they were from and the lady answered loud and slow "WE ARE FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"  My buddy said "No s---".  Now where are you from in the states?"  The man apologized and looked strickened.  He spoke a little german and had a language dictionary with him.  Yeah, there are folks that think the whole world is the USA and can't think any other way.

      But when I sat down with who ever I'm sharing a table with or a seat and we get to talking  The most I got was, "... you aren't like what we were taught.  I can speak to you and you listen."  Just one example.   I was also stopped after the shuttle Columbia launched for the first time.  We were in the middle of terrorist bombings and activities by the Red Army Faction and other groups when this happened.  I had a pit in my gut and was searching for options when I was hugged and clapped on the back by German citizens and told congratulations USA is on top again.  When ever I got out of the tourist areas I get to really see where I am. 

     I also appreciate this country we have more because we are different, THANKFULLY, than the rest of the world.  We have our faults yes.  But they are ours and we will work them out OURSELVES.  We were not, that I remember, founded on the nobility (state) taking care of my needs, but it is up to me to succeed or fail with no one to blame but me.  We all have obstacles (not challenges) in our way that need to be overcome.  They are of various types and sizes and not easy.  But that is what makes our progress that we earned all the sweeter and more appreciated.  This also sets an example for the future.  If I'm considered narrow minded, so be it.  I believe a person should be looked at by what they are inside and not what others want to accuse me of looking at.

Yeah the French are the most stuck up.  But that's another story.

Logged

Everyone said it couldn't be done. But he with a chuckle replied, "I won't be one to say it is so, until I give it a try."  So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin.  If he had a worry he hid it and he started to sing as he tackled that thing that couldn't be done, and he did it.  (unknown)
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2007, 06:19:21 PM »

>>There was a bunch of us from different countries having a great time and most of us couldn't understand each other, and didn't care.

That's the point. On a 1 to 1 basis you'll find very little bigotry or bias, it's when we let the generalities get in the way that things start to become slanted.  I agree with KathyP that I shouldn't have to speak a foriegn language in my own country--now apply that to ourselves when we're overseas. 

I will fully accept a Hispanic, African, Russian, etc., that comes to our country and wants to become an American--those should be (and usually are) willing to adapt.  What I object to is those who come to this country and remain a Mexican, Russian, or Iranian living in American.  Conersely the same is true in reverse.
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.345 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page April 07, 2014, 10:57:51 PM